Macmillan will sell e-books to libraries in pilot program at $25 per title

But licenses to its titles will expire after two years or 52 check-outs.

While the e-book market has certainly skyrocketed in recent years, it’s still not always easy to get digital books from your local library. Yet unlike physical books, which obviously degrade over time—digital books won’t. So publishers have figured out that they need to start selling a license to the book, rather than the book itself, to our venerable institutions of public learning.

Now Macmillan, another one of the “Big Six” publishers, announced Thursday its new plan for selling e-books to American public libraries. Macmillan now says its titles will cost $25 (by comparison, some of its same bestselling titles in the Kindle store go for $8 to $12)—and once acquired by a library, each will be available for two years or 52 check-outs, whichever comes first.

The pilot, which will launch later this spring, is set to include “1200 backlist titles from the Minotaur imprint, which handles mysteries and crime fiction,” reports LibraryJournal. The industry publication also reports that Random House remains the only one of the Big Six that doesn’t impose these expiration dates, but it does charge much higher prices.

Allison Lazarus, president of Macmillan’s sales division, told LibraryJournal that this is currently a pilot, and its terms may change.

“We will look at the results throughout the duration of the pilot,” she said, “and will make assessments along the way as to whether to expand the title selection and whether to continue the program as launched beyond the two-year term.”

103 Reader Comments

My county library offers e-book lending through OverDrive, but I don't know what kind of terms they agreed to other than the obvious DRM requirement. 25$+ dollars per title and they expire after a year or two? Are publishers really just trying to make e-books seem unattractive to libraries so that the format fails, or are they just that inept at handling it?

Considering libraries don't tend to repurchase books that have worn out, instead they tend to wrap them with as much packaging tape as is required to keep it together, the publishers seem to be making much ado about nothing. However I don't see it as being a terrible value proposition either. $25 for 52 rentals (would be better without the time limit) makes each book cost about $0.48 per checkout. The libraries also don't have to worry about stocking, availability, tending to repairs or any of the other incidentals that comes along with managing the physical books.

Personally, I'd rather pay $10/month for full catalog access with (perhaps) a limit of 20 books read per month, which is likely more than I'd ever be able to read anyway, instead of dealing with a public library.

For something that should be simple this seems really greedy and shortsighted on the part of Macmillan. I would think something similar to a yearly site license would work better - a flat fee to access the publisher's ebook assets.

does anyone know (any librarians here?) how long a physical book lasts on average before replacement? I guess it's linked to popularity.

I'd also be curious if libraries pay more for physical books than consumers.

Seems improbable since they can can purchase from a bookstore just like a normal individual. It's not like there is a license statement in a book limiting the number of people who can use it. I'm sure if books were developed in the 20th century, they would definitely be licensed items with several pages of FBI and Interpol warnings at the beginning, though.

This artificial expiration date is ridiculous. Publishers should charge more for an e-book if they need more money.

Edit: A better model for libraries should be charging more up front for digital license that can be used by multiple readers at the same time. If a time limit is absolutely necessary, it should be based off the average length of time a book would last or is checked out. How long (time or check outs) do books typically last?

25 dollar for 52 checkout is around 0.48 cent per checkout. Since i can borrow for two weeks at a time, that means per year I can check out book 26 times. Two books at a time. So in two year I just expire two book while paying RM 20 (USD 6.6) but it cost the library USD 50. Seriously? And if the book is not popular, it will expired by itself?

Seriously? Does book publisher hate libraries now that people have tablet/ereader and they (publisher) now sell ebooks from their own site?

Is this just like charging internet radio expensive licensing fees for music, and start thinking about doing the same to over the air radio?

An ebook is not a paper book. Ebooks make publishers obsolete. Anyone can publish and sell their own ebook. Publishers need new business models that customers will buy into. What is described in the article is not something I'll buy into. Publishers, the times are changing. Get on board or face extinction.

Almost all donated books get tossed. (And the most-circulated books are all newer publications, which almost no one donates.) Librarians are polite enough not to complain about taking your trash though.

The obvious strategy for libraries then would be to just buy physical books in a store or through Amazon and just ignore the whole E-book thing altogether. When the public complain to the library tell them to call the publisher.

Another annoying thing is that an E-book should be able to be checked out 1000 times concurrently but the publishers do not allow that.

I buy perhaps 10-15 hardcover books a year. Borrow 100 from my local library and buy E-books, never more than $6 each from Webscriptions...all out of print science fiction with no DRM. I use a Mk1 Kobo as my reader and Epub format. Works for me but I prefer hard cover books to keep.

The proposed system seems rather unfair. It's not uncommon to find the date stamps in the front of a library book dating back decades and the plate having been added to multiple times.

One advantage of a digital system over a physical book would be the ability to loan to multiple borrowers simultaneously. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Macmillan didn't allow simultaneous loans of a single e-book under their new scheme racket.

My county library offers e-book lending through OverDrive, but I don't know what kind of terms they agreed to other than the obvious DRM requirement. 25$+ dollars per title and they expire after a year or two? Are publishers really just trying to make e-books seem unattractive to libraries so that the format fails, or are they just that inept at handling it?

Overdrive and the smaller library vendors 3M Cloud Library and Baker and Taylor Axis 360 have to negotiate with each publisher. So yeah your library like most is probably paying out the nose for these crippled files. The ones from Random House that do not expire are more like $80 each. Publishers got a chance to eliminate the first sale doctrine and they are now following the path laid out by the music industry to oblivion.

An ebook is not a paper book. Ebooks make publishers obsolete. Anyone can publish and sell their own ebook. Publishers need new business models that customers will buy into. What is described in the article is not something I'll buy into. Publishers, the times are changing. Get on board or face extinction.

Exactly that. There is no adapting the business model here, there's only going back to the drawing board and dreaming up something entirely new.

The beauty of the electronic format is that distribution is practically free. This really does leave publishers cold in the wind, but hey, they had a good run.

Instead of just copying the information from the LibraryJournal, this would have been a good place for Ars to do some research and provide us with comparative information about physicial books. Hey, you could have just asked a research librarian (does the library still provide that service, where you ask them a question and they look it up for you?).

The proposed system seems rather unfair. It's not uncommon to find the date stamps in the front of a library book dating back decades and the plate having been added to multiple times.

One advantage of a digital system over a physical book would be the ability to loan to multiple borrowers simultaneously. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Macmillan didn't allow simultaneous loans of a single e-book under their new scheme racket.

Yep, one copy, one user. Most licenses do not allow you to "return" the book before the checkout period is over.

"degrade over time"? Sure, if you sling them in puddles and set them on fire.Our library had a Sears catalog from the 80s. The 1880s. And everyone knows schools around here use TEXT BOOKS (you know, things every students, pulls open, doodles in, carries home with them, literally slings around) for a DECADE before trying to replace them because of the cost.

Macmillan: Sell temporary access to books to a library for the same price as a real book? Yes please.

An ebook is not a paper book. Ebooks make publishers obsolete. Anyone can publish and sell their own ebook. Publishers need new business models that customers will buy into. What is described in the article is not something I'll buy into. Publishers, the times are changing. Get on board or face extinction.

Whats funny, is that this is them changing their business model. Charging people a fee to use something and not to own is the current mentality in most businesses. Businesses want you to rent something they own.

What is really obsolete is the term publisher. What the "publishers" should be call is something more like content aggregator. If they were to drop their physical publishing business completely they would just have a content as a service model, much like that of Netflix. The issue here is that you, and I, believe their concept of value is WAY off from what it really seems is worth.

1. In order to get the widest variety and greatest number of titles out to libraries, make the initial distribution for a package of a wide array of selections gratis (or for a nominal cost that just covers the expense of administering the effort).

2. Instead of charging libraries up-front for an eBook, charge a "lending fee" to the institution when the book is loaned out. I.e., A book that is never checked-out isn't a liability. This encourages libraries to accept titles that they might otherwise pass over for "lack of interest" among their patrons. Libraries don't want to spend money on books that they're not sure will be used.

3. Impose a cap on the charges levied to a library for any one title. This is so libraries aren't blindsided by an unexpectedly popular book whose licensing costs haven't been budgeted for. We want to encourage libraries to lend eBooks, not drive them under for doing it.

Not that this is a perfect idea, or that there aren't improvements to be made or considerations that haven't been thought of or anything. Libraries already often pay higher prices for books to get higher quality hardcopies (e.g., more durable binding, etc.), so it's nothing new that they'd spend more on any given title than you or I would at a standard bookstore. Utilize the cost advantage to digital distribution to both make it cheaper for libraries to lend, and make it more likely for patrons to use them. There are lots of books, both physical and digital, that I've borrowed from the local library out of passing interest or temporary need (e.g., research) that I'd never buy myself.

IMO, publishers need to view libraries as partners to keep their titles in useful circulation (and thus indirectly influence sales), not as opponents whom they might view as cannibalizing their profits.

Without the need for printing/binding, I am failing to see the value that a book publisher adds anymore.

They could fill a fantastic niche by selling the eBooks without DRM for a small profit. They would be a place to collect them (A repository of books, which is the IP of what they do now). They could even sell them online for less than retail and make a healthy profit, as well as advertising for their website.

Without the need for printing/binding, I am failing to see the value that a book publisher adds anymore.

This article tells you - marketing to suckers like libraries who are more likely to buy into this kind of scheme than individual customers and enrich publishers

If you think the RIAA and the MPAA hate digital medium, they have NOTHING on the book conglomerates. They are probably hoping this ebook thing takes off so they can kill the resale market just like always on consoles are doing for console games (the resale market for PC games died when the internet started picking up)

Instead of just copying the information from the LibraryJournal, this would have been a good place for Ars to do some research and provide us with comparative information about physicial books. Hey, you could have just asked a research librarian (does the library still provide that service, where you ask them a question and they look it up for you?).

Yes we do answer questions, most now are how do I file for unemployment online when I don't know how to use the mouse or why will this ebook work on my Android device but not on my iPad? (licensing title by title)

26 checkouts is not too bad for really popular physical titles. Depends on the quality of the binding.

The one thing I didn't see mentioned that MIGHT make this a little bit more reasonable is if the license allows concurrent checkouts. That might make it worth it a little bit.

It's still a bad deal.

And the only other difference I can see is that you don't have to go to the library to check out an ebook. Maybe they're concerned that this will spur popularity with people that might otherwise not have used the library at all?